Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
maryhawking at tigers.demon.co.uk
Fri Feb 17 19:13:50 GMT 2012
From: Mark Lomas [mailto:ukcrypto at absent-minded.com]
Sent: 17 February 2012 18:46
To: nbohm at ernest.net; UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
Subject: Re: Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence
>Ladder keepers might fall prey to the doctrine of 'attractive nuisance'.
You have a duty to protect children against the dangers of anything they may
find attractive but not recognise as dangerous.
>Originally the danger itself needed to be attractive (e.g. a swimming
pool), but I understand that some jurisdictions now consider any unguarded
danger to be an attractive nuisance.
>In particular, a warning sign may be considered inadequate protection,
especially if the child is too young to read it.
Could you elaborate on this doctrine and whether it is a legal one? It's new
Sounds as though it could be used for almost anything - children being
evolutionally programmed (like adults) to be curious about new experiences:
does the duty (if there is one) extend to adults and how is it defined?
Do guardians of children have a corresponding duty to prevent them
experiencing anything not legally guaranteed to be totally free from any
And how is this enforced?
"thinking - independent thinking - is to humans as swimming is to cats: we
can do it if we really have to." Mark Earles on Radio 4.
and don't forget patients like Fred!
Primary Health Info 2012
23rd - 25th April 2012, Chesford Grange Warwickshire
'Using IT and Information to Deliver Transformational Change'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ukcrypto